Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[Dan From Smithville]

That is a reference I do not believe I cited before, you are, to the best of my memory, correct. There shouldn't be any contention about it.

The problem is your ability to understand what these articles are saying. They are not demonstrating a failure of science as you are asserting.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

To an extent in that case I'd have to become a doctor specializing in cardiology I suppose. What is the rooting for? That the studies and statements of these organizations are correct? Because that's what I'm presenting. Their findings about stents.

Understanding what a popular article is telling you doesn't require a medical degree or a science degree. What is required is recognizing a personal bias to see this say something it doesn't and remove that bias as best can be done.

No one is questioning the findings reported about the research. We are questioning your conclusions about what this means about science.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

@Dan From Smithville
Erroneous conclusion? I'm sorry I gave my idea as to why doctors recommended stents even though they knew they did not make a difference in the longevity of a patient.

There is no indication of what you are claiming. This is something you want to see. It is not something you are getting from the material you are presenting. Where in any of those articles does it say that doctors are prescribing stents in defiance of the findings. The first article predicted that now that this is known, it would drive down the invasive technique in the appropriate patient group.

I fail to understand why these articles are so difficult for you to understand. They aren't technical articles, but popular articles that have synthesized the details and minimized the jargon to make it more comprehensible. Somehow you are finding ways to make it less comprehensible to yourself.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well, perhaps we shall see--or perhaps we shall not see.

I've tried. But there really is no common ground here. You see things in articles about science that just aren't there and nothing seems to help guide you to that awareness.

I hope you do keep reading and looking into these things. Perhaps you can overcome your bias and start to recognize what is actually being said in the articles you read. Best of luck and good hunting.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

@Dan From Smithville
Erroneous conclusion? I'm sorry I gave my idea as to why doctors recommended stents even though they knew they did not make a difference in the longevity of a patient.

Perhaps if you move away from these articles and study logic and reasoning, especially as used in science, this may help you better understand articles like those you have cited.

I would mention that I've actually been in classes and belonged to journal clubs where we read and dissected articles to enhance the ability to understand scientific reasoning, research and reporting. Some personal form of that may help you to see what is going on in the articles you are finding.

I'll pray about it.

 

[YoursTrue]

@Dan From Smithville et al -- You're right in that I could not find the original article I referred to. But here's another one, and at this point I'll drop it I think because I am more interested in the present theory of evolution. Although I'm glad I read the article -- It concludes, "It surely seems reasonable that stable patients with single-vessel disease should be informed that stents work no better than fake procedures, and no better than medical therapy. Some may still choose a stent. They should at least know what they’re paying for." Heart Stents Are Useless for Most Stable Patients. They’re Still Widely Used. (Published 2018).

 

[firedragon]

And we know how lifeforms came to be, there is zero mystery about it unless you lack even a basic education

How did life come about?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

@Dan From Smithville et al -- You're right in that I could not find the original article I referred to. But here's another one, and at this point I'll drop it I think because I am more interested in the present theory of evolution. Although I'm glad I read the article -- It concludes, "It surely seems reasonable that stable patients with single-vessel disease should be informed that stents work no better than fake procedures, and no better than medical therapy. Some may still choose a stent. They should at least know what they’re paying for." Heart Stents Are Useless for Most Stable Patients. They’re Still Widely Used. (Published 2018).

I agree with those conclusions, but they in no way state or imply that doctors are ignoring these findings and going with stents anyway.

Even if they did, the science didn't fail.

That you expect that these results will be implemented like magic at the snap of a finger or twitch of a nose is rather unrealistic, but still not evidence of a failure of the science.

 

[YoursTrue]

Perhaps if you move away from these articles and study logic and reasoning, especially as used in science, this may help you better understand articles like those you have cited.

I would mention that I've actually been in classes and belonged to journal clubs where we read and dissected articles to enhance the ability to understand scientific reasoning, research and reporting. Some personal form of that may help you to see what is going on in the articles you are finding.

I'll pray about it.

I'm looking at science. And my main interest is really about the theory of evolution. Not stents, although it was helpful to read the current analysis of the efficacy of stents. For some, yes, for others, no. So that about stents shows ME (maybe not you) that scientists, including teaching scientists meaning those doctors teaching science majors, may really have no basis for a teaching considered as solid. And accepted as such. no more, because if there's going to be an argument against that -- anyway -- I will continue looking into it. Thanks.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm looking at science. And my main interest is really about the theory of evolution. Not stents, although it was helpful to read the current analysis of the efficacy of stents. For some, yes, for others, no. So that about stents shows ME (maybe not you) that scientists, including teaching scientists meaning those doctors teaching science majors, may really have no basis for a teaching considered as solid.

Why would that be a conclusion of reading those articles? The science worked. All the science that goes into making a modern hammer won't prevent someone from using it for evil. But you are, in essence, claiming that too is the result and fault of science.

And accepted as such. no more, because if there's going to be an argument against that -- anyway -- I will continue looking into it. Thanks.

There will definitely be arguments against erroneous claims based on misunderstanding and misinterpretation from bias.

 

[firedragon]

Why would that be a conclusion of reading those articles? The science worked. All the science that goes into making a modern hammer won't prevent someone from using it for evil. But you are, in essence, claiming that too is the result and fault of science.

Hmm. Very true.

I wish that this applied by everyone on at least most of worldviews, unless it's some weird racist, bigoted or murderous one like Germany back in the day.

 

[YoursTrue]

Why would that be a conclusion of reading those articles? The science worked. All the science that goes into making a modern hammer won't prevent someone from using it for evil. But you are, in essence, claiming that too is the result and fault of science.

There will definitely be arguments against erroneous claims based on misunderstanding and misinterpretation from bias.

I am saying after reading similar articles on the subject that many patients are given stents recommended by doctors they trust even though the science has concluded they don't benefit from them.

 

[Eddi]

How did life come about?

Abiogenesis - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[fatemahmanahil]

Since this seems to be a scientific answer about genes. Can someone explain how the genes came about?
It is said and I do not deny it that all living organisms on Earth have genes made of the same four bases: adenine (A), thymine (T), cytosine (C), and guanine (G). These bases are used to form double-stranded DNA molecules that store genetic information. The genetic code is written in the DNA and RNA molecules, and it encodes instructions for how to reproduce and operate the organism.
So these things themselves seem very, very complex. Do scientists know exactly how the DNA structure came about?

Scientists understand how DNA works, but they don’t know exactly how it first came into existence. DNA is made of four bases—adenine (A), thymine (T), cytosine (C), and guanine (G)—that store genetic information. One idea is that life started with simpler molecules, like RNA, which can store information and help chemical reactions happen. Over time, DNA may have evolved from RNA because it is more stable for long-term information storage. Early Earth likely had environments where the building blocks of life could form naturally, such as deep-sea vents or surfaces of minerals. Although the exact process of how DNA formed is still unclear, scientists continue to study this question using experiments that simulate early Earth conditions.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I am saying after reading similar articles on the subject that many patients are given stents recommended by doctors they trust even though the science has concluded they don't benefit from them.

Which, if true, has nothing to do with the validity of the science. Which, I gather, was your the initial reason for referencing those articles.

If people, including some some doctors, don't use what is learned through science, that doesn't indicate a failure of the science. But this information is out there available to medical professionals, patients and the healthy alike. If I were potentially a patient, I would be looking for information like that you found to ask better questions and make my own decisions.

 

[firedragon]

Abiogenesis - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

So again, "how do you know" how life emerged on earth?

What's the established theory at least?

 

[Eddi]

So again, "how do you know" how life emerged on earth?

What's the established theory at least?

Go and ask some scientists

I'm not a scientist.....

And neither are you

A religions Internet forum is not really the place to ask

 

[firedragon]

Go and ask some scientists

But the post I responded to said something about having basic education and everyone knows how life emerged. It was an insult to whoever "seemingly" doesn't know because they lack basic education. By the way mate, not even scientists know how life emerged on earth. No human being does. Abiogenesis is not even a theory. It's just a word that's used to easily refer to the emergence of life without agency. Insulting people claiming they lack basic education does not make one super clever when they are making such a fallacious claim.

So you see? What are you talking about?

 

[Eddi]

By the way mate, not even scientists know how life emerged on earth.

They have a better idea than religious people do as they have studied natural reality, rather than mythology

Any intelligent person knows that scientific explanations are better and more valid than "the big man in the sky did it by magic"

That is not even an explanation it is a declaration of ignorance

I'll take a scientific explanation of reality over a religious one any day of the week

 

[firedragon]

They have a better idea than religious people do

Well but that's not the claim I responded to. So answering with a "others are worse than me" is not a responsible response mate. This is a cop out because a fallacious claim was made and you are responding with a no go.

Cheers. Hope you understand.